PRADIP POPATLAL KATARIYA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 14/06/2024 framed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 286 days in filing of the present appeal. We have heard both the sides and also gone through the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the affidavit. On going through the 2
ITA.No.1496/PUN./2025
(Pradip Popatlal Katariya) contents of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for sufficient cause in filing of this appeal within the prescribed time limit and, therefore in the light of the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act and also taking a justice oriented approach in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
& Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that against the addition of Rs. 60.00 lakhs made by the Ld.AO for the alleged purchase of immovable property, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to furnish the relevant details and also the additional evidences which goes to the root cause of the impugned addition. He therefore prayed that an opportunity may please be granted to go before the Ld.CIT(A) and also to give necessary directions to Ld.CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences and then decide the issues on merits of the case.
4. Learned
Department
Representative
(DR) has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee.
5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is an individual and for A.Y.

3
ITA.No.1496/PUN./2025
(Pradip Popatlal Katariya)

2011-12, assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act completed on 19/12/2018 and against the income from agriculture shown by the assessee is Rs. 3,04,710/-, the Ld.AO separately made an addition of Rs. 60.00 lakhs for unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property.
We further find that in appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee could not furnish any specific details and the Ld.CIT(A) has also passed a brief order on merits and the same reads as under:-
“1. In the grounds of appeal the assessee objects to assessing Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable on the points which remained to be answered by the assessee are that the agreement to sale done by the assessee is a registered document for which stamp duty Rs. 2,68,390/-, Rs. 2,13,490/- and registration fees of Rs. 30,620/- and Rs. 30,620/- paid respectively. The receipt acknowledgments for Rs. 30 lacs for both the properties as issued by the M/s Sumeet Constructions are enclosed with the sale deeds. These receipts do not contain any cheque numbers that means the payments are done/
accepted in cash. A seal of sub